EvC Forum: Thermodynamics and The Universe

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Thermodynamics and The Universe

ringo

Member (Idle past 440 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 132 of 186 (387754)
03-02-2007 1:25 PM

Reply to: Message 129 by Fosdick
03-02-2007 11:51 AM

Re: Manure, rocks, and entropy

Hoot mon writes:

A pile of manure can be so thermodynamically energetic it catches on fire, but a pile of rocks usually does not have such a combustible nature.

Hmm.... When I was a kid, we used to burn rocks in the kitchen stove.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 129 by Fosdick, posted 03-02-2007 11:51 AM		Fosdick has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 440 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 147 of 186 (388059)
03-04-2007 1:18 PM

Reply to: Message 146 by Fosdick
03-04-2007 12:40 PM

Re: where in the universe is the universe?

Hoot Mon writes:

If I placed a fresh deck of cards on the ground, and next to it I placed a shuffled deck, which of the two decks comprises (i.e., has) more entropy? The shuffled deck, of course.

I'm not following that at all. Why would one arbitrary sequence of cards have "more entropy" than another?

Organisms live so far from equilibrium that measuring an equilibrium s is meaningless, and that only delta s has meaning.

I was under the impression that delta S could only be determined for individual processes. So, unless you can accurately sum delta S for every process, how does delta S for an organism have any meaning?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 146 by Fosdick, posted 03-04-2007 12:40 PM		Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 148 by Fosdick, posted 03-04-2007 2:05 PM	ringo has not replied
	Message 151 by Percy, posted 03-04-2007 2:38 PM	ringo has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 440 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 181 of 186 (388634)
03-06-2007 7:29 PM

Reply to: Message 179 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 7:06 PM

Re: Dissipative structures

nemesis_juggernaut writes:

The formation of crystals (or snowflakes, as I've heard it argued at times) is a simple chemical reaction in accordance to physical laws that do not in any sense, evolve and certainly could not be compared to genetics.

Why couldn't they be compared?

Water molecules "arrange themselves" in a crystal in accordance to physical laws. DNA molecules "arrange themselves" and metabolic molecules "arrange themselves" in accordance to physical laws. What's the difference?

However, if creationists say that anything using energy must need some sort of converter, I obviously would agree that.

There is no external "converter" necessary. The "converter" is the molecules themselves, and the physical laws according to which they "arrange themselves".

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 179 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 7:06 PM		Hyroglyphx has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	Taq
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,900 Year: 4,157/9,624 Month: 1,028/974 Week: 355/286 Day: 11/65 Hour: 0/2