Originally posted by dj2beckerHere's a "during" photo: http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_r_corona_australis_00.jpg
[b]The brief summary is ABOUT the formation of stars ...with pictures, even.
Yes, the theory behind it. There are no before and after photos. The pictures are of what scientists think might possibly be the formation of stars. It is purely speculation with many unanswered questions as I have pointed out before.[/b]
What exactly are you arguing? That stars don't form?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy don't you open another thread for that one, we are taking this one right off topic...
Here's a "during" photo: http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/h_r_corona_australis_00.jpg
What exactly are you arguing? That stars don't form?
Originally posted by jaywillIt's nothing to do with what anyone wants, its to do with finding the truth out.
I fail to understand why the modern man is conscerned about the possibility that God created the universe.
We still have many many years if not centries to discover the laws of nature and the mechanics of it all. We just have to humble ourselves to the possibility that an Intelligence is behind the creation Who can keep it all running without us being ab ...[text shortened]... or.
Do you really want to bear the RESPONSIBILITY of knowing EVERYTHING there is to know ?
If you are too lazy and apathetic to care about that, fine.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, but since the Earth is flooded with free energy from the Sun, our system is open enough to allow for reversal of entropy (if only temporarily - after our star dies we can get back to decaying).
Oh so a substance on earth will NOT decay into less complex compounds if left to itself?
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateIts easy to just say "You're Wrong" but since you don't at any point back up your statements or answer my claims I will take it that you don't actually know what you are talking about.
You're wrong.
I'll type this slowly and hope you get it. A substance will decay into less complex compounds if left to itself. Rusting/Oxidation is actually a chemical reaction that includes the addition of material, Oxygen and not true decay/decomposition. This is what dj2becker stated:
"It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical ...[text shortened]... ple of entropy in action, but, I suspect you might hurt yourself trying to understand it.
What both you and dj2becker seem to forget is that the second law only applies to a closed system. There is no subset of this universe which is a closed system as gravity permeates every nook and cranny.
dj2becker gave an example of uncombed hair and claimed it demonstrated the fundamentals of what the second law is all about.
Let me expand on his example.
If you go to sleep with combed hair, it is more than likely that you will wake up with hair that is in a less orderly state.
The reason for this is your head moves randomly against the pillow thus resulting in random hair movement which results in a less ordered state for your hair.
However if you start the night with your hair uncombed and move your head in only one direction against the pillow you will find that your hair actually becomes more ordered. This is a result of a directional force acting on your hair.
A well known directional force called gravity permeates all spacetime. With straight hair, if you shake your head randomly, you will find that even though the hair is thrown into disorder while shaking it will tend to fall down in a much more orderly pattern once the shaking stops. This is because of gravity.
In the presence of gravity it possible and very common place for order to increase.
Just to re-iterate. Some chemical reactions are endothermic and some are exothermic. This applies to both reactions that result in greater complexity and those that result in a lower complexity. Would someone correct me if I am wrong, but surely the Second law would imply that in the absence of external influence, only exothermic reactions will take place? In any case, in the absence of an input of energy, an endothermic reaction would surely be a violation of the law of conservation of energy.
I am still waiting for dj2becker to back up his claim or admit he was wrong.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI can't believe I'm arguing with you over the second Law of Thermodynamics. On anything resembling a macroscopic scale it is perfectly valid. I understand that there are some documented variations with very small systems, but, quite, honestly I am not versed in this.
Its easy to just say "You're Wrong" but since you don't at any point back up your statements or answer my claims I will take it that you don't actually know what you are talking about.
What both you and dj2becker seem to forget is that the second law [b]only applies to a closed system. There is no subset of this universe which is a closed system as ...[text shortened]... avity.
In the presence of gravity it possible and very common place for order to increase.[/b]
There exists no isolated system from a simple glass of ice water to the universe itself that does not experience an increase in entropy. Overtime, pressure, temperature and density tend to reach an equilibrium and entropy is a measure of how far you have progressed on the road to equilibrium.
Dj2becker is still incorrect that evolution violates the Second Law, but, you are equally incorrect in using your invalid examples to 'proove' your statements. You seem to have deliberately picked flawed examples, why you would do this is beyond me as you're obviously intelligent and capable of presenting a valid argument.
Dj2beckers "violation of the 2nd Law" deliberately invokes a common misinterpretation and plays of the conventional/intuative understanding of chaos/disorder. Simply, Life is not a closed system. The ability for living things to create order is irrelevant and not a violation of the second law. Likewise, a storm/hurricane/tornado is often used as a natural example of order coming from disorder. Again, not a violation of the second law as the storm is not a closed system and draws energy from external sources. Any increase in order is transitory and we cannot stop the inevitable tumble towards equilibrium.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAt the risk of further muddying the waters, many compounds have less chemical potential energy than their elements. I'm not entirely sure this a valid argument and it requires further exploration. It would certainly apply to spontaneous reactions in a closed ystem, but, leaves my arguement open to synthesis reactions in a non closed system. However, it would suggest that the second law lends itself to the formation of many complex chemicals.
Just to re-iterate. Some chemical reactions are endothermic and some are exothermic. This applies to both reactions that result in greater complexity and those that result in a lower complexity. Would someone correct me if I am wrong, but surely the Second law would imply that in the absence of external influence, only exothermic reactions will take place ...[text shortened]... ation of energy.
I am still waiting for dj2becker to back up his claim or admit he was wrong.
I don't see how you came to the conclusion that only exothermic reactions can exist for the second law to apply. Reactions within the system, endothermic or exothermic are irrelevant. For example, assume a closed system, perfectly insulated, consisting of a glass of water and an ample amount of ice. The ice will absorb heat from the water and melt (endothermic). Ultimately, you'll have a system with a uniform temperature, composition, etc... in equilibrium.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by Hand of HecateDj2beckers "violation of the 2nd Law" deliberately invokes a common misinterpretation and plays of the conventional/intuative understanding of chaos/disorder. Simply, Life is not a closed system.
I can't believe I'm arguing with you over the second Law of Thermodynamics. On anything resembling a macroscopic scale it is perfectly valid. I understand that there are some documented variations with very small systems, but, quite, honestly I am not versed in this.
There exists no isolated system from a simple glass of ice water to the universe ...[text shortened]... ease in order is transitory and we cannot stop the inevitable tumble towards equilibrium.
Scotty claimed that the universe is a closed system.
The ability for living things to create order is irrelevant and not a violation of the second law.
But all living things still tend towards chaos, even if order can momentarily be created by them. Ask any aging man about the condition of his skin.
Likewise, a storm/hurricane/tornado is often used as a natural example of order coming from disorder.
In my estimation a storm/hurricane/tornado is a good example of something that creates disorder from order. You will never find a tornado assembling a jet from a junkyard.
Originally posted by dj2beckerHe did. But life is not the universe.
Scotty claimed that the universe is a closed system.
Of course you omitted to explain why you made that statement so that you can back out once proved wrong.
But all living things still tend towards chaos, even if order can momentarily be created by them. Ask any aging man about the condition of his skin.
Not true. You have a blinkered view of things and only see choas. Unless life on earth comes to a complete end then order continues to exist. The more life on earth the more 'life created' order. It is hardly 'momentary'.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateAll I am trying to say it that the Second Law does not in any way say that chemical compounds must necessarily decay into simpler compounds (or even 'tend' to. dj2becker claimed that it did and he was wrong, he just has a hard time admitting his mistakes.
I can't believe I'm arguing with you over the second Law of Thermodynamics. On anything resembling a macroscopic scale it is perfectly valid. I understand that there are some documented variations with very small systems, but, quite, honestly I am not versed in this.
On a macroscopic scale there is gravity and in general the second law does not apply as there are no closed systems.
Even in your example of a mixture of water and ice, if you start with blocks of ice mixed in water within the first few seconds all the ice will float to the top resulting in an increase in order. It will come at the expense of a conversion of potential energy into heat thus the second law is maintained.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe did. But life is not the universe.
He did. But life is not the universe.
Of course you omitted to explain why you made that statement so that you can back out once proved wrong.
[b]But all living things still tend towards chaos, even if order can momentarily be created by them. Ask any aging man about the condition of his skin.
Not true. You have a blinkered view of things and onl ...[text shortened]... es to exist. The more life on earth the more 'life created' order. It is hardly 'momentary'.[/b]
Of course you omitted to explain why you made that statement so that you can back out once proved wrong.
Life supposedly came to exist within the universe from non-life. I do not see how this can be reconciled with the 2nd Law, unless you want to claim that life is more chaotic that non-life.
Not true. You have a blinkered view of things and only see choas. Unless life on earth comes to a complete end then order continues to exist. The more life on earth the more 'life created' order. It is hardly 'momentary'.
All life tends towards disorder, and new life always comes from existing life.
2 edits
Originally posted by Hand of HecateActually it depends how much ice and how cold it is. If the ice is in sufficient quantity relative to the water and/or cold enough, it will freeze the water into ice. Ice is a more ordered state than water. I
For example, assume a closed system, perfectly insulated, consisting of a glass of water and an ample amount of ice. The ice will absorb heat from the water and melt (endothermic). Ultimately, you'll have a system with a uniform temperature, composition, etc... in equilibrium.