Originally posted by twhiteheadRegardless, entropy still increased. You know you're killing me right? I swear, this thread is making me old.
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. I
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI never said it didn't. The problem is that entropy is not the same thing as order and dj2becker is trying to equate the two though he never seems to be sure whether entropy is order or disorder in his opinion. He carefully avoids the use of the word entropy as it might show him up.
Regardless, entropy still increased.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI would equate this discussion to three retards, equally spaced around a large ball, all pushing on it with equal force in a vain attempt to move the object. As a result of their efforts they all conclude that round objects cannot be moved by any means short of high explosives.
I never said it didn't. The problem is that entropy is not the same thing as order and dj2becker is trying to equate the two though he never seems to be sure whether entropy is order or disorder in his opinion. He carefully avoids the use of the word entropy as it might show him up.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateMoving in unison, they insert fire-crackers up their anuses and present their buttocks to the ball...
I would equate this discussion to three retards, equally spaced around a large ball, all pushing on it with equal force in a vain attempt to move the object. As a result of their efforts they all conclude that round objects cannot be moved by any means short of high explosives.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateWell you're not exactly helping by making false statements such as the following:
I would equate this discussion to three retards, equally spaced around a large ball, all pushing on it with equal force in a vain attempt to move the object. As a result of their efforts they all conclude that round objects cannot be moved by any means short of high explosives.
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
You are wrong. Even in a closed system, all molecules decay over time. Entropy's a b*tch.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen did I say that entropy is the same thing as order?
I never said it didn't. The problem is that entropy is not the same thing as order and dj2becker is trying to equate the two though he never seems to be sure whether entropy is order or disorder in his opinion. He carefully avoids the use of the word entropy as it might show him up.
You simply enjoy putting words in my mouth?
You are the only one who is confused. Now I understand why...
My definition of entropy has always been the same: the measure of disorder in a system.
Entropy – a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder.
Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2004
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadWould you care to demonstrate why the statement is false?
Well you're not exactly helping by making false statements such as the following:
[b]Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
You are wrong. Even in a closed system, all molecules decay over time. Entropy's a b*tch.[/b]
You can jump up and down like a raging maniac insisting that something is false for as long as you wish, but you will be the laughing stock in the end.
I am still waiting for you to produce all the false statements that you have claimed I have made...
You seriously are an embarrassment to your university, or where ever you studied science for that matter...
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have a degree in mathematics from the University of Zambia. But I have learnt a lot more in the 13 years since then and even back then, university courses was hardly the sum of my knowledge.
Accredited by which university if I may ask?
This is about the fourth time you have said this. Again I ask you, such as?
Start with these:
1.
Originally posted by dj2becker
IMO the Theory of Abiogenesis violates the second law of thermodynamics.
2.
Originally posted by dj2becker
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
3.
Originally posted by dj2becker
A localised decrease in enthropy still requires a complex intelligent mechanism.
4.
Originally posted by dj2becker
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
5.
Originally posted by dj2becker
Carbon dioxide is never formed by the random collision of Carbon and Oxygen, as you would want to have it.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt might surprise you that Science and Mathematics are totally unrelated.
I have a degree in mathematics from the University of Zambia. But I have learnt a lot more in the 13 years since then and even back then, university courses was hardly the sum of my knowledge.
[b]This is about the fourth time you have said this. Again I ask you, such as?
Start with these:
1.
Originally posted by dj2becker
IMO the Theor ...[text shortened]... xide is never formed by the random collision of Carbon and Oxygen, as you would want to have it.[/b]
I am still waiting for you to say why my statements are wrong.
IMO the Theory of Abiogenesis violates the second law of thermodynamics.
You mean to say that it is not my opinion the Theory of Abiogenesis violates the second law of thermodynamics??
Evolutionary theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
A localised decrease in enthropy still requires a complex intelligent mechanism.Carbon dioxide is never formed by the random collision of
Carbon and Oxygen, as you would want to have it.
And these statements are wrong why exactly? Because you have a degree in Math from the university of Zambia?
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am correct in my assertion. I too could whip out my 'qualifications', but, it sounds awfully like a penis size competition to me. Traditionally I haven't done so well in these and tend to avoid them.
Well you're not exactly helping by making false statements such as the following:
[b]Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
You are wrong. Even in a closed system, all molecules decay over time. Entropy's a b*tch.[/b]
Ever play Jenga? A molecule is like a Jenga puzzle game tower with a couple of blocks removed. It wants to fall down(or be reduced to its smallest stable component) and will do so with appropriate environmental pressures. Even in the abscence of elevated temperature, oxygen, pressure or a host of other variables, the molecule/element will be subject to arbitrarily small disturbance that will cause a nuclear decay event. These events, to my knowledge, cannot be predicted, but, they will happen.
Add infinity to the closed system and you will, ultimately, you will end up with a uniform, slightly radioactive system.
Edit: Ha! You just got punked by dj2becker.
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt might surprise you that Science and Mathematics are totally unrelated.
It might surprise you that Science and Mathematics are totally unrelated.
I am still waiting for you to say why my statements are wrong.
[b]IMO the Theory of Abiogenesis violates the second law of thermodynamics.
You mean to say that it is not my opinion the Theory of Abiogenesis violates the second law of thermodynamics??
Evolutionary t ...[text shortened]... ents are wrong why exactly? Because you have a degree in Math from the university of Zambia?[/b]
What???? do you define maths as the pursuit of counting how many fingers one has?😕