Originally posted by dj2beckerSo you first say that the carbon and oxygen reaction requires the addition of energy (endothermic), and is therefore OK and understandable as it fits the second law, then you go on to say that most reactions resulting in complexity are actually exothermic and that that is also OK.
[b]When Carbon and Oxygen are put together we get Carbon dioxide. Clearly more complex than plain carbon and plain oxygen.
When energy is added to it as in combustion yes. But I said: It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
Carb ...[text shortened]... his system are exothermic (such as rusting) or metamorphism, thus increasing the global entropy.[/b]
So what was your original claim again? I'm getting confused here.
By the way, combustion is an exothermic process and does not require the addition of energy.
Whatever the case, your claim that chemicals naturally break down to less complex molecules is false. Do you admit it?
Originally posted by dj2beckerJust like no one "knows for sure" that gravity exists?
There are many theories that try to explain the formation of stars.
You for one should know that no one knows for sure how they form.
There are scientific theories dealing with star formation and the basics of it (such as gravity) are very solid theories not hypotheses, so yes, anyone who understands the theories "knows for sure" how stars form.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadGravity has been directly observed and can be empirically tested. The same does not apply to star formation.
Just like no one "knows for sure" that gravity exists?
There are scientific theories dealing with star formation and the basics of it (such as gravity) are very solid theories not hypotheses, so yes, anyone who understands the theories "knows for sure" how stars form.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadI admit that iron oxide is one of the few exceptions. But the nett entropy of the system still increases, because iron is actually being corroded in the process. And you for one you should realize that corrosion is actually a destructive process and not constructive at all.
No, I think he said that iron oxide is more complex than iron.
Do you agree that your claim that all chemical compounds 'tend' to break down into simpler forms is a false claim?