18 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium that results in no additional work being performed. For example, heat always flows spontaneously from regions of higher temperature to regions of lower temperature, and never the reverse, unless external work is performed on the system.
As a physicist I know the Second Law pretty well, but I don't see how it leads to "things breaking down". Can you be more specific?
Entropy is the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to move toward a state of inert uniformity. This means that there is an inevitable and steady deterioration of a system without the input of additional energy.
Entropy and increasing disorder is what happens if you let nature take its course. For example, it is difficult to construct a house of cards, but almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse. So there has to be something working against nature to prevent this collapse from happening. So it is with biological systems that have a tendency toward death and decay. That is, things will eventually break down.
The Instructor
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, on Earth that outside agency is the sun. We live exactly as long as the sun. Been around for billions of years and will be for few billion more, at least 2 billion more before it expands to the size of the orbit of planet Earth. If humans are around then, which is unlikely, we WILL have to move off the Earth or move THE Earth.
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium that results in no additional work being performed. For example, heat always flows spontaneously from ...[text shortened]... tendency toward death and decay. That is, things will eventually break down.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe point is that systems eventually break down. You don't expect to be still living and working in a billion years do you? Also have you ever asked yourself who put our solar system in the order it is so that the diferent systems we see last as long as they do? Why are there certain laws that govern the operation of our solar syatem?
Well, on Earth that outside agency is the sun. We live exactly as long as the sun. Been around for billions of years and will be for few billion more, at least 2 billion more before it expands to the size of the orbit of planet Earth. If humans are around then, which is unlikely, we WILL have to move off the Earth or move THE Earth.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsPeople have asked and answered that last question pretty well. I believe Newton and Einstein comes to mind. As to WHO, we can make a fair guess at what YOUR answer would be. I am content with WHAT.
The point is that systems eventually break down. You don't expect to be still living and working in a billion years do you? Also have you ever asked yourself who put our solar system in the order it is so that the diferent systems we see last as long as they do? Why are there certain laws that govern the operation of our solar syatem?
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseNewton and Einstein attributed those laws to a supreme being, didn't they?
People have asked and answered that last question pretty well. I believe Newton and Einstein comes to mind. As to WHO, we can make a fair guess at what YOUR answer would be. I am content with WHAT.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
1 edit
Natural-law argument for the existence of God was especially popular in the eighteenth century as a result of the influence of Sir Isaac Newton. Observers concluded that things are the way they are because God intended them to be that way, though He operated outside of the natural law, Himself, as the law giver.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-law_argument
Whence is it that Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises all that Order and Beauty which we see in the World? ... does it not appear from phaenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite space, as it were in his Sensory, sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly by their immediate presence to himself.
— Sir Isaac Newton
Opticks, 2nd edition (1718), Book 3, Query 28, 343-5.
And from true lordship it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; from the other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and he is present from infinity to infinity; he rules all things, and he knows all things that happen or can happen.
— Sir Isaac Newton
The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687), 3rd edition (1726), trans. I. B. Cohen and Anne Whitman (1999), General Scholium, 941.
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
— Albert Einstein
Letter (24 Jan 1936). Quoted in Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981), 33.
In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction.
— Albert Einstein
Autobiographical Notes (1946), 19. In Albert Einstein, Alice Calaprice, Freeman Dyson , The Ultimate Quotable Einstein (2011), 397.
Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not bring us any closer to the secrets of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.
— Albert Einstein
Letter to Max Born, 4 Dec 1926. The Born-Einstein Letters: Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916-1955 (1971), 91.
What I'm really interested in is whether God could have made the world in a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all.
Told to Ernst Straus.
— Albert Einstein
Quoted in Gerald Holton, The Scientific Imagination: Case Studies (1978), xii.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeA typical creationist. When challenged to provide something substantive, you run for the hills.
I wasn't the one who made up PE to justify claims made by Evolutionists, so you can go knocking on other doors until you find someone ignorant enough to buy into your claims. I'm done with your church, you'll be getting no more tithes from me.
You claimed you used to understand how evolution worked and accepted it as fact, but had found it wanting. Now you refuse to explain what and where you found it wanting.
You also claimed there was substantive writing on the subject by non-creationists that I am apparently either ignoring or am unaware of, but when I ask you where all this writing is hiding, you start trying to lead me on a wild goose chase, either presenting creationists, mixing in other unrelated arguments, or simply telling me to go do my own research.
And finally you play the Kelly card, ie you claim that everyone is equally religious.
19 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium that results in no additional work being performed. For example, heat always flows spontaneously from ...[text shortened]... tendency toward death and decay. That is, things will eventually break down.
The Instructor
Entropy is the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to move toward a state of inert uniformity.
correct; that's one way of putting it.
This means that there is an inevitable and steady deterioration of a system without the input of additional energy.
“ deterioration” of a system? In what sense? That is not what the law says.
Entropy and increasing disorder is what happens if you let nature take its course.
Odd way of saying it, but, yes.
Note that the word “disorder” here is only thermodynamic disorder and NOT the vague more generic English dictionary meaning of the word “disorder”.
For example, it is difficult to construct a house of cards, but almost everything that happens in nature will result in its collapse.
NO NO NO. Oh dear, you have just shown here you don't understand entropy (in physics) at all.
Again, note that the word “disorder” here in physics is only thermodynamic disorder and NOT the vague more generic English dictionary meaning of the word “disorder”.
You have just committed the logical error of fallacy of equivocation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
EVEN in a isolated system with no energy going in and out of it from outside, you can stand those cards back up again WITHOUT breaking the Entropy law.
(note that “the second law of thermodynamics” = “the Entropy law&rdquo😉
The increase in Thermodynamic disorder, NOT the increase in the English dictionary meaning of the word “disorder” which you are equating it with here, does NOT equate with the “collapse” of something!!!!
So there has to be something working against nature to prevent this collapse from happening. So it is with biological systems that have a tendency toward death and decay. That is, things will eventually break down.
NO NO NO the death and decay of a lifeform is NOT due to Entropy and is NOT a thermodynamic phenomenon but a biological one!!!!
EVEN in a isolated system with no energy going in and out of it, you can have a steady increase in life for a while with something living and growing and thriving and WITHOUT breaking the Entropy law. And the entropy law is not about vaguely “things breaking down”.
OK, let me put it this way: to say that lifeforms will decay because the Entropy law says there will be an increase in “disorder” is like saying that a riot with the police will never end because Entropy law says there will be an increase in “disorder” ; in both cases this is a fallacy of equivocation by confusing different meanings or the word “disorder” and, in the latter case, confusing thermodynamic disorder with “disorder” as in lack of law and order.
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou should do your own research. He is under no obligation to do it for you. It is up to you to search out the matter to see if what he says is true. You are responsible to make your own decision whether or not you wish to do any reserch of your own.
A typical creationist. When challenged to provide something substantive, you run for the hills.
You claimed you used to understand how evolution worked and accepted it as fact, but had found it wanting. Now you refuse to explain what and where you found it wanting.
You also claimed there was substantive writing on the subject by non-creationists that I ...[text shortened]... research.
And finally you play the Kelly card, ie you claim that everyone is equally religious.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyIt is all related because every thing breaks down eventually, whether you wish to admit it or not. So there is no need for me to debate a numbnuts.Entropy is the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to move toward a state of inert uniformity.
correct; that's one way of putting it.
This means that there is an inevitable and steady deterioration of a system without the input of additional energy.
“ deterioration” of a system? In what sense? That ...[text shortened]... ter case, confusing thermodynamic disorder with “disorder” as in lack of law and order.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
It is all related because every thing breaks down eventually, whether you wish to admit it or not. So there is no need for me to debate a numbnuts.
The Instructor
It is all related because every thing breaks down eventually,
No,it isn't. The entropy law and the vague statement of “every thing breaks down eventually” (which is totally false anyway. Does, for example, heat energy “break down eventually”? -answer, no) is NOT “all related”, whatever that is supposed to mean!
If you think they are then, “related” exactly how? This is just tremendously vague woolly-headed thinking that leads to a lack of real understanding of physics and weird misconceptions so, and this is my honesty friendly my advice to you: you really must stop this type of thinking and learn to think concisely and not make vague ideas of unrelated things being 'related' and learn to avoid the logical error of the fallacy of equivocation that you have fell pray to here and, no doubt, fell pray to many times before.
As a result of this kind of vague confused thinking, you have failed to correctly understand the second law of thermodynamics.
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyGood luck getting him to understand.It is all related because every thing breaks down eventually,
No,it isn't. The entropy law and the vague statement of “every thing breaks down eventually” (which is totally false anyway. Does, for example, heat energy “break down eventually”? -answer, no) is NOT “all related”, whatever that is supposed to mean!
If you think they are then ...[text shortened]... confused thinking, you have failed to correctly understand the second law of thermodynamics.
19 Jun 13
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHindswhenever Albert Einstein spoke of "God" in the context of physics, in Einstein-speak that means either "everything" or "the laws of physics".
Natural-law argument for the existence of God was especially popular in the eighteenth century as a result of the influence of Sir Isaac Newton. Observers concluded that things are the way they are because God intended them to be that way, though He operated outside of the natural law, Himself, as the law giver.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-law_ar oted in Gerald Holton, The Scientific Imagination: Case Studies (1978), xii.
The Instructor
He totally rejected the notion of a personal god, like your god, and said that such a belief in a personal god was "childish".
So I do not know why you keep quoting him as if he would support your delusional religious beliefs! He certainly wouldn't! He would have reverently rejected all your religious beliefs and he would have just called you "childish".
If you deny these facts then Here are just a few Einstein quotes that prove he would NOT have agreed with your religious beliefs:
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm
Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
Albert Einstein: Idea of a Personal God Cannot be Taken Seriously
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
Albert Einstein: Morality Concerns Humanity, Not Gods
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God.
- Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course neither of us is under any obligation. But I choose to make the assumption that an anonymous person on the internet who does not want to substantiate his claims is less likely to be correct than the body of scientific data that I am familiar with. I see no point in further research on my part. I think he is wrong, and I think he knows he is wrong - hence his behaviour.
You should do your own research. He is under no obligation to do it for you. It is up to you to search out the matter to see if what he says is true. You are responsible to make your own decision whether or not you wish to do any reserch of your own.
The Instructor