The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually 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.

Exactly, but add energy from the sun, as you claim, and Bob's your uncle. This is exactly what the 2nd Law is about.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Exactly, but add energy from the sun, as you claim, and Bob's your uncle. This is exactly what the 2nd Law is about.

Please elaborate as you are not actually saying much there.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please elaborate as you are not actually saying much there.

OK, I am going to type this very slowly so that you can read it...

You made the claim that the addition of energy from an external source (the sun), causes an increase in order, (for example in the primordial soup). But with your ice example, the addition of energy from the sun will cause ice to melt and thus become disordered, as you rightly stated.

Originally posted by dj2becker
OK, I am going to type this very slowly so that you can read it...

You made the claim that the addition of energy from an external source (the sun), causes an increase in order, (for example in the primordial soup). But with your ice example, the addition of energy from the sun will cause ice to melt and thus become disordered, as you rightly stated.

Actually I made no such claim.

I am claiming that the addition of energy can cause an increase in order.

Now, do you agree that some of your claims have been proved wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I made no such claim.

I am claiming that the addition of energy can cause an increase in order.

Now, do you agree that some of your claims have been proved wrong?

Actually I made no such claim.

So you don't believe abiogenesis is true?

I am claiming that the addition of energy can cause an increase in order.

You said, "Ice is a more ordered state than water."

Energy from the sun causes ice to melt into water, and that is a decrease in order.

Now, do you agree that some of your claims have been proved wrong?

Such as?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Actually I made no such claim.

So you don't believe abiogenesis is true?

I am claiming that the addition of energy can cause an increase in order.

You said, "Ice is a more ordered state than water."

Energy from the sun causes ice to melt into water, and that is a decrease in order.

Now, do you agree that some of your claims have been proved wrong?

Such as?[/b]

DJ, you are stupid. An external source CAN cause an increase in order. It doesn't always but it CAN and it also MIGHT NOT. The Sun melting ice is an example of an external source decreasing order. This does not invalidate ANY of the above.

Mother of God, take a critical thinking course.

And your claims that have been proved wrong? "No chemical left to itself will form a more complex chemical."

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
DJ, you are stupid. An external source [b]CAN cause an increase in order. It doesn't always but it CAN and it also MIGHT NOT. The Sun melting ice is an example of an external source decreasing order. This does not invalidate ANY of the above.

Mother of God, take a critical thinking course.

And your claims that have been proved wrong? "No chemical left to itself will form a more complex chemical."[/b]

An external source [b]CAN cause an increase in order.[/b]

Momentarily, yes. I agree. But the overall NET order of the universe is still decreasing, according to the 2nd Law. Do you dispute that?

And your claims that have been proved wrong? "No chemical left to itself will form a more complex chemical."

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.

I stated:"It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex."

Originally posted by dj2becker
Momentarily, yes. I agree. But the overall NET order of the universe is still decreasing, according to the 2nd Law. Do you dispute that?

I see XanthosNZ has answered your previous post quite well.
Nobody is disputing what the overall NET order of the universe is doing. How is it relevant anyway? You were not making claims about the overall NET order of the universe, you were making claims about specific subsets of the universe and those claims were wrong.
You used the word "momentarily". By this do you mean any finite time period? Do you agree that for any finite time period it is possible for a non-closed subset of the universe to increase its entropy?

I'll type this slowly and hope you get it. A substance will decay into less complex compounds if left to itself.
Your statement is false. I have already explained that the decay of some molecules (like water for example) would be endothermic and thus, without the input of energy, would violate the law of conservation of energy. Therefore, if left to itself, it will not decay.
You have excluded all reactions where two molecules come together by saying "a molecule left to itself" thus in your scenario increasing complexity is impossible simply because an addition to the system is excluded by definition not because of the Second Law. However, if we talk about a system which includes more than one molecule then increasing complexity is possible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see XanthosNZ has answered your previous post quite well.
Nobody is disputing what the overall NET order of the universe is doing. How is it relevant anyway? You were not making claims about the overall NET order of the universe, you were making claims about specific subsets of the universe and those claims were wrong.
You used the word "momentarily". bout a system which includes more than one molecule then increasing complexity is possible.

Nobody is disputing what the overall NET order of the universe is doing.

Okay, good let's take it from there then.

Do you agree that the NET order of the universe is decreasing? Let's just try and see whether or not you can see the big picture here...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you agree that the NET order of the universe is decreasing? Let's just try and see whether or not you can see the big picture here...

I actually don't know whether it is or isn't. But proceed with your argument assuming it is and lets see where you are going.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I actually don't know whether it is or isn't. But proceed with your argument assuming it is and lets see where you are going.

Before I proceed...

You said: "Nobody is disputing what the overall NET order of the universe is doing."

Does this not imply that everybody knows what the overall NET order of the universe is doing?

Also if as you say, you don't know what is happening in our universe, why do you bother debating from a stance of ignorance?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Before I proceed...

You said: "Nobody is disputing what the overall NET order of the universe is doing."

Does this not imply that everybody knows what the overall NET order of the universe is doing?

No, only that nobody has disputed your claim nor based any of their arguments on said dispute.
I personally would dispute it but that would merely take us on a side argument (which is doubtless your intention) and not deal with the various false claims you have made.
If you believe that your claims follow from it then go ahead and show it, if not then please admit your claims are false before we proceed to new areas.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, only that nobody has disputed your claim nor based any of their arguments on said dispute.
I personally would dispute it but that would merely take us on a side argument (which is doubtless your intention) and not deal with the various false claims you have made.
If you believe that your claims follow from it then go ahead and show it, if not then please admit your claims are false before we proceed to new areas.

Would you care to enlighten me on your scientific background so that I know at least where to start with you?

Do you have any understanding as to what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states?

It seems that I have just been talking over your head and the frustrating thing is that you fail to grasp even the most elementary principles of the 2nd law.

So please, enlighten me before we proceed, or else I will just be wasting my time.

Why do you dispute the fact that the NET disorder in the universe is increasing? Because that is actually what my argument is based upon. And please don't just say that you don't know because an argument from ignorance doesn't count much.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you care to enlighten me on your scientific background so that I know at least where to start with you?

My scientific background is as good as yours and based on the thread so far, almost certainly better as you have made a number of clearly false claims.

Do you have any understanding as to what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states?
Approximately, but I could go look it up again.

It seems that I have just been talking over your head and the frustrating thing is that you fail to grasp even the most elementary principles of the 2nd law.
Even if I knew nothing about the 2nd law, your claims would still be false and provably so.

Why do you dispute the fact that the NET disorder in the universe is increasing? Because that is actually what my argument is based upon.
I will go into that once you have shown that your claims do in fact follow from it.

[edit] In fact, if you can show that your claims do in fact follow from it then the fact that your claims are false would prove that the above claim is also false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My scientific background is as good as yours and based on the thread so far, almost certainly better as you have made a number of clearly false claims.

[b]Do you have any understanding as to what the Second Law of Thermodynamics states?
Approximately, but I could go look it up again.

It seems that I have just been talking over your head and ...[text shortened]... d upon.
I will go into that once you have shown that your claims do in fact follow from it.[/b]

My scientific background is as good as yours

Accredited by which university if I may ask?


and based on the thread so far, almost certainly better as you have made a number of clearly false claims.

This is about the fourth time you have said this. Again I ask you, such as?