Originally posted by scottishinnzdj knows all about star formation:
[b]Aha, I see... So the sun just magically appeared in the sky and started supplying the energy necessary for life.
No, but we explained this already. Seriously what kind of so called physics major doesn't know about the formation of stars?[/b]
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, but we explained this already. Seriously what kind of so called physics major doesn't know about the formation of stars?
[b]Aha, I see... So the sun just magically appeared in the sky and started supplying the energy necessary for life.
No, but we explained this already. Seriously what kind of so called physics major doesn't know about the formation of stars?[/b]
And you for one should know that two for the price of one doesn't get you very far...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd at that point it will be even more complex than it was before.
[b]Ah, but wait a few years and the rust will corrode your plain sheet of metal till there is hardly anything left of it.
And at that point it will be even more complex than it was before.
So you refuse to discuss abiogenesis. Suit yourself.
I'm quite happy to discuss abiogenesis. Your statement had nothing to do with abiogenic theory however.[/b]
Yeah right, we all know that you would buy a rusted up car because it's more complex than a brand new one...
Originally posted by buffalobillRedox state of components of a system has no bearing on the entropy of the entire system.
Maybe, maybe not. Fe becomes Fe2O3, H2O, which is clearly a violation of the 2nd Law according to the School of Bekker.
Of course, you know that already though.
Dj's thinking is so.... one-dimensional.
Originally posted by dj2beckerTechnically external, driven my the consumption of additional beverages that upset the equilibrium. Keep in mind, we assumed that the Xanthos system was in equilibrium, say with a completly empty bladder at this point.
Or an internal influence of course, such as a bursting bladder caused by the overconsumption of liquor.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI was going to mention that, but since deej seems to have problems with even simple concepts I thought it best not to add any more confusion to his world.
Technically external, driven my the consumption of additional beverages that upset the equilibrium. Keep in mind, we assumed that the Xanthos system was in equilibrium, say with a completly empty bladder at this point.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'll quote you:
My statement was made within the context of abiogenesis theory. If you read the entire thread you will see that Twithead and myself are discussing thermodynamics with relation to abiogenesis theory.
Your example of metal does not exactly fit into the abiogenesis model does it?
"It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex."
It is well known that this is utter crap and in fact you have no clue what the hell you are talking about. I don't care what context you are talking in, you claimed the above and it's not true.
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou are wrong. Even in a closed system, all molecules decay over time. Entropy's a b*tch.
I'll quote you:
"It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex."
It is well known that this is utter crap and in fact you have no clue what the hell you are talking about. I don't care what context you are talking in, you claimed the above and it's not true.
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZNo, you're wrong. Rust will ultimately decay as well, it is not the end point of entropy. The end of the universe will resemble a a formless, uniform and slightly radioactive cosmic soup. On a macroscopic level, entropy can only ever increase.
But rust doesn't decay into iron and oxygen. It gets more "complex" during entropy.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI'm not actually talking about entropy, I'm talking about dj's inability to understand that a natural chemical reaction can occur that results in more "complex" chemical material.
No, you're wrong. Rust will ultimately decay as well, it is not the end point of entropy. The end of the universe will resemble a a formless, uniform and slightly radioactive cosmic soup. On a macroscopic level, entropy can only ever increase.
Originally posted by XanthosNZFinally, a statement that is correct. Of course chemicals can react to form more complex compounds. This is not what I interpretted DJ's comment to mean. Strictly speaking, he was correct that chemicals will tend to decay into simpler forms. Otherwise, yes, DJ is wrong about an truly amazing number of things.
I'm not actually talking about entropy, I'm talking about dj's inability to understand that a natural chemical reaction can occur that results in more "complex" chemical material.